Open thread: Festivus edition

December 23, 2014 • 9:00 am

This is the ghost of Professor Ceiling Cat, summoned forth by his minions to create a forum for discussion.  In the thread below you can talk about whatever you want.

In the spirit of the days ahead, let us start with the Airing of Grievances.

grievance-final

 

If you have no idea what this form references, check out the clip below.

194 thoughts on “Open thread: Festivus edition”

    2. In 1972, every “first dance” was to We’ve Only Just Begun by The Carpenters, at least at every wedding I attended.

      Congratulations! My marriages and periods of “living together” in total fall a decade short of your 42 years; good for you.

    1. Should be “Congrieveulations”, no?

      Damn. NewEnglandBob’s been married longer than I have!

        1. ha. But, see, Mohammad never restricted his own age to that of his spouse…you are morally superior.

  4. I wish to complain about the population of rapidly evolving rhinovirus that has recently taken up residence in my respiratory tract. It is sapping my energy, and causing me to go through tissues at an alarming rate.

    1. Ten years of parenting:

      Number of times my children have caused near death illnesses to me: >12

      Number of times I have gotten my kids sick: 0

  5. I am considering decorating the cat tree with lights and ornaments, but because this didn’t occur to me last week I’d have to fight traffic to obtain the necessary festival regalia.

    1. Festivus requires only an unadorned metal pole, because ‘tinsel is distracting’.
      I love that episode.

  6. Got my Festivus pole out of the basement. Have plenty of grievances to air. Not sure which feats of strength to use this year.

  7. I have so many grievances but I think this one probably acts as an umbrella to them all: people with no situational awareness & the inability to put things in perspective. That is all.

    1. no situational awareness & the inability to put things in perspective

      They don’t know and they don’t care? J

      1. More accurately, they are so inward focused they only think of themselves & what annoys them. Any outward focus is in a “grass is greener” type of way.

        1. I have three female humans in my house with underdeveloped situational awareness and senses of perspective, but since they are 5, 7 and 8 years of age, it is tolerable because it is age-appropriate!

          They are however more mature in those areas than many, many full-grown adults that I meet. So I share your grievance.

      1. Yes, my young son has a great store of similar descriptions and epithets for when he reaches driving age.

        He has said to many people: My Dad talks to the other drivers! 🙂

  9. My grievance is with Brian Williams of NBC news. Did anyone else see the story he did regarding the priest that prayed and his paralysis got better(it didn’t go away it just got a little better).
    I read this blog every day and have learned a great deal,
    that nbc story made me cringe a bit.

  10. My only real grievance as ever is with the grifters, thieves and money grabbers who use and abuse their fellow humans for fun and profit, what Elvis Costello called “the mechanism of swindlers who act like kings, and brokers who break everything.”

    1. I can’t make it past the headline:

      “Sweden prostitution reduction model’s success a myth, skeptics warn”

      I’ve read this 5 or 6 times and still can’t make out what it means.

        1. Do you mean crappy writing or a broken link? Anyway: the two named groups chortling over ways they reduce prostitution by punishing either either providers or purchasers.

          1. Link worked for me. But oof that headline – it reads like it was generated by a malfunctioning robot.

      2. Though the headline makes sense, it’s way too clogged with nouns for comfortable reading.

        Whether the story and headline will be as enduring as other myths – Theseus Beats Bull, Thor Hammers Snake, Maui Stops Sun, etc – is another question.

        1. A classic from the 60s News of the Screws, as quoted in Private Eye: “Nudist Welfare Man’s Model Wife Fell For The Chinese Hypnotist From The Co-op Bacon Factory”.

          Another classic from the good old days, when Lord Longford walked out of a Danish live show in disgust during research into pornography: “Sex Show Shocks Porno Probe Peer”. All the essential ingredients of a British headline, even including alliteration – brilliant!

          2. I was unsure if I had remembered the headline correctly, so I Googled it, and discovered that the nudist welfare man actually had two artificial legs, but they just didn’t have enough room to fit that clearly important fact into the headline! Sub editors; gotta love ’em!

    3. I’m not sure I’m with you there on the “choices and employment” angle. I think there is a legitimate public interest in curtailing street walking, for the safety of both customers and vendors.

      I suppose a well-regulated professional sex service industry would be better all around, and I suppose you can also thank the prudes and the religious that such a thing does not exist. But the bottom line is that we don’t have such a thing, and what we do have is dangerous and destructive for the women who labor in it. I think feminists are right to call it exploitation and abuse.

      The rag at the other end of the link is a right-wing organ with an anti-progressive agenda so I don’t know what to think of the information presented. If the Swedish law hasn’t eliminated or reduced prostitution that’s something for the Swedes to evaluate; if the trade has been moved off of street corners and into bars and onto the Internet, that might actually be a step toward safety and self-determination for the prostitutes, but who’s to say.

      1. One of the problems with your comment is that it’s based on the idea the Swedes just want to reduce street walking. They actually want to reduce prostitution tout court. It says so in the article in fact. Brothels are illegal in Sweden. Paying for sex is illegal in Sweden. So this has nothing to do with shifting prostitution into safer venues.

        Tell me, does outlawing abortion lead to safer abortion?

        You can argue the rights or wrongs, but not I think the basic fact that eliminating prostitution eliminates that source of income and that choice for women who would be prostitutes.

        1. My bad, I did not mean to presume about Sweden’s objectives with this law. I don’t know anything about the law, and I’m confident I haven’t learned anything about it ether, having read only a piece of agitprop in a Moonie newspaper.

          All I’m saying is that if it is true that streetwalking is reduced, that is a net social gain, just as if selling weed or unlicensed car repair were reduced in the public realm. And what I’m hearing in the Swedish law as described is better than criminalizing both sides of the transaction: I imagine that prostitutes in the American system are trapped in a cycle of institutionalization and recidivism, whereas the johns face some embarrassment and little to no real penal consequences.

          Legal abortion is safer than illegal, I am sure, and I can see where some might make the argument that a woman’s control over her own body is the common thread.

          I’m not sure how idealistic to get in a conversation like this. Would it be better if the sex trade were as safe and legal as is hairstyling or physical therapy? I’m sure it would be. Wouldn’t it be better still if all human sexual contact were consensual and mutual and non-commercial? Wouldn’t it be even better than that if sex had no taboos associated with it so there was no stigma or restrictions on sexual activity, reproductive healthcare and birth control? Or how about if human emotional control evolved to a point where reproduction was perfunctory and people achieved the same mind-blowing satisfaction with or without coïtus?

          So yes religion does humanity a disservice by criminalizing relations between consulting adults, but I can’t fault the Swedes for experimenting with making the best of a bad situation. They are way ahead of the U.S.

          1. All I’m saying is that if it is true that streetwalking is reduced, that is a net social gain, just as if selling weed or unlicensed car repair were reduced in the public realm.

            Sorry. Not following you.

            I have no desire to smoke pot, but I think it’s criminal that selling it should be criminal.

            And since when are mechanics licensed? Do you think you should need a license to work on your own car? The guy I’ve been taking my cars to for years, I’m sure, doesn’t have any sort of license other than one to drive. But he used to be on a top fuel drag racing team, and I have no clue how I’d find anybody else I’d trust to do work as good, let alone for what he charges (always never near enough).

            I also have no desire to use the services of a sex worker. But I’d be fine with regulating streetwalking the same way any other sidewalk advertising is regulated, no more and no less. If it’s legal for a tax service to hire some dude to dress up as Lady Liberty and hold a sign directing schmucks into their office on the corner, it damned well better be legal for a sex worker to get all dolled up and hold a sign directing people to the brothel across the street.

            (And, sure. Zoning regulations. But not burdensome ones. If it’s zoned for vitamin supplements, Thai foot massage, and fitness centers, there’s no reason it shouldn’t also be zoned for sex workers.)

            b&

          2. Absolutely agree with ya, Ben. Both about prostitution (because attacking their customers is going to have very nearly the same chilling effect as attacking the prostitutes themselves) and about my right to work on my car.

            I have to say that sadly, here in NZ, since prostitution was legalised a decade or so ago, various city councils have tried fiddling with their zoning laws and by-laws to make it difficult or impossible for brothels to comply with their regulations. They haven’t succeeded yet, though.

          3. Ha. Somehow it made sense as I was writing it. I’m not sure this makes it any more coherent, but since you asked …

            I went off on the tangent because moving the activity off of the street appeared to be the net effect of the “failed” law in the story.

            What I was trying to say with the list of business activities was that whether a practice is generally lawful or not, or whether one is okay with its existence or not, keeping it off the street is a start. I may not care if my neighbor smokes pot, or if my cousin fixes people’s cars wherever, or whatever: I don’t want these activities going on in front of my house or place of business. I would be fine with regulating sign spinners believe me!

            My understanding is auto mechanics are subject to licensure under the California Business & Professions code, as are all technical specialties where the significance of consumer protection is at a certain level in re health and safety. There are also air quality regulations setting standards of care in handling volatiles, and there is permitting involved with fees calculated on quantities of solvent, paint, etc., used. And of course there are zoning laws, municipal business permits, etc.

        2. Delphin, I think you are spot on.
          These laws are but an attempt to eliminate prostitution in an ‘unholy’ alliance of feminists and conservative puritans.
          Banning prostitution, by whatever means, appears to drive the whole thing underground, never a healthy policy, I can fully agree with you there.
          The point of the article is just that, that the so called ‘progressive’ legislation, punishing the client rather than the service provider, does not work, and does the ‘sex-workers’ no favour.

  12. My grievance is that this procedure was nowhere documented in either ISO 4001 or 14001 standards for management.

      1. I am proud to say I am an approved ISO 9000 auditor. I know this because I found a certificate that says so in a file of old papers. What makes me especially proud of this is the fact that I can remember not one thing about the course which I presumably attended to earn the certificate. Not one neuron retains any trace of a ghost of a memory of it.

        Not sure whether this says more about the value of one-day courses or about my mind’s ability to ignore completely things in which I have no interest.

        1. Isn’t that the standard where there’s a certain threshold for checklists in filing cabinets at which point any errors that occur in the system cannot be blamed on anyone involved?

          1. As an approved ISO 9000 auditor I can authoritatively tell you – I have no idea. 🙂

            (I think – from other sources – it’s some system for having documented procedures for *everything*. A bureaucrat’s paradise).

          1. I can’t say I’ve tried to find out.

            My impression of Scientology was, that you can always get into it for free – it’s just expensive to get out of.

  13. Being a retired person and living rural, I have far fewer complaints than most for sure. It just automatically reduces so many and the old joke or complaint is that you no longer have any weekends or holidays. However, continuing to learn should never stop and the fact that many people seem to stop in this effort does aggravate me.

    1. I tried on retirement for 2 years in my early 30s (and I loved it!). I used to say: I have 6 Saturdays and 1 Sunday per week (only because some shops (e.g. alcohol in Minnesota) were closed on Sundays.)

    2. Same here- retired, rural, learning. Such a beautiful world to learn about! Botany leads me to so many gorgeous natural places, and the study of plants is also the study of evolution, which is what led me to this website. Here, the focus on atheism and the ills of religion is also welcome to me. The science posts are great, but I have had to grapple (which is good, for someone who wants to keep learning) with the discussions about free will. One thing leads to another and now I am reading John Searle’s book The Rediscovery of the Mind. He does not think free will exists either, nor anything immaterial. The book is helping me think about these ideas.

      This thread is supposed to be about grievances. I guess mine is that life is too short. So much to learn, so little time!

  14. No grievances; but some grief: We lost one of our kitties yesterday. Some kind of diffuse abdominal cancer; but respiratory infection did her in. Poor thing. Only about 7 years old.

    2. Yes, that is very sad! Awful to lose one no matter how old they are. How many remaining cats do you have? Hope they are providing some solace.

      1. Hi, just one beast left. He’s young and vigorous and should be around for a while. He’s a bit lonely just now. I expect he’ll come around to the advantages of no competition.

          1. No, we’ve decided these are our last beasts. We are close to retirement now (we will get to retire early by US standards) and we want freedom to travel when we do. We’ve put off a lot of travel for the sake of kids (and pets). Like Jerry (unless a Bengal ends up on his doorstep, so to speak) we will be catless.

            I have an aquarium that I am going to give away, fish and all in January.

            Both of our kitties were rescue cats (we got them as adult cats).

            The one who just passed, it turns out, had a BB-sized lead pellet in her, near her pelvis, from her previous life (no impact on her health AFAIK). It was in the muscle and hadn’t damaged any bones on the way in; she never gave any sign of it (outwardly).

            The remaining beast seems to be doing just fine. He wants a little extra loving the last two days — but then we all have!

          2. I’m not helping you with the fish. I’ve got a tank (sans fish) I need to unload.

            Any takers?

          3. Understandable. Our solution to lots of travel and keeping cats is graduate student cat-sitters. They are always happy to get a bit of money and an opportunity to hang out in a house that is often nicer than their regular digs. But if you don’t have the ready supply, it does indeed pose a problem.

            Except . . . rescue kittens!!

  15. I lift my glass to the return of the sun (I live in the northern hemisphere).

    Happy Solstice everyone!

    I get through “The Darkness” by grabbing from one milestone to the next:

    1. Thanksgiving (USian) – 4-day weekend at the end of November
    2. Earliest sunset of the year: ~10-Dec
    3. Shortest day of the year: ~21-Dec
    4. Latest sunrise of the year: ~10-Jan

    And then, by late-January, the light is getting much better, and pretty quickly, especially in the evenings.

    1. Perihelion could be added to your list. It occurs January 4 2014. Don’t know where you are in the northern hemisphere, but in my time zone in eastern USA, 1:37 a.m. on Jan 4.

  16. Microsoft Word.

    Swimming pools above 81°F.

    When people smoke near me (not the smokers themselves).

    And from Hitchens: “Turn off that fucking cell phone. You have no idea how unimportant your call is to us.”

    1. OK, yes, the fucking cell phones.

      I stand corrected. I want to file a grievance against the all-pervasive presence of “smart” phones.

      Yesterday I glanced down the hallway at my work, and there were about 10 people walking and every single one of them was looking down at their little hand-held screen thingie!

      There is going to have to be a big reaction against this crap! Why are you (people out there) spending your life looking at a little screen? Put down the crack pipe.

      My wife is more or less insisting that we get “smart” phones. (I have an ancient Motorola flip phone — works fine! I don’t text (except under duress) and I use it as a telephone only — maybe once every 2 days.) I am not confronting this proposal; but I am (tacitly) refusing to lift a finger to promote its execution.

      I’m concerned because she already spends far too much time on FB. With the mobile crack pipe, I may never be able to escape the black hole of FB and the other internets nonsense.

      I do use FB; but once per day, for about 5 minutes (just like email), I only post personal photos (for the most part; I’m going to post that Garda story from this morning) and I generally skip past any posting from someone else which is “canned” from the internet (not a direct creation of someone I’m “friends” with, such as a personal photo or something they wrote themselves).

      If I see another rock in someone’s home with a cutsie, uplifting internets saying on engraved on it, I’m going to vomit on it.

      1. I wish to register a complaint against people telling other people how and when to use their smart phones if it doesn’t directly affect that person.

        2. IF the phone user is making a nuisance by using it (like, being oblivious to their surroundings and getting in people’s way) then they should turn the damn thing off. Otherwise, it’s fine by me.

          What I hate is convenors of meetings ordering everyone to turn their phones off. I don’t get many calls on mine but if I do get one it’s potentially important to me, I’ll nip out of the meeting to take it if I have to, and YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW UNIMPORTANT YOUR FUCKING MEETING IS TO ME.

          😉

          1. “I don’t get many calls on mine but if I do get one it’s potentially important to me, I’ll nip out of the meeting to take it if I have to”

            This is true for me as well (though I do have my phone on silent almost all the time.)

            I receive about one call every week on my cell phone. I probably place about 10 per week. Not a very heavy user! We’ve never exceeded our free minutes, in the 13 years I’ve had a cell phone.

          2. If it’s a large crowd, I’ll ask that people silence/put on vibrate their phones. If it’s a somewhat small crowd and a long brain storming event, I ask that people constantly be on their phones (emailing, etc.) if they can help it and we can agree on taking breaks to do so. Of course, I don’t mind if they get a call or need to check for messages. I think this is reasonable – we’re all really busy and getting communications inbound for good reasons so just restricting completely is a bit totalitarian.

      3. Another telling anecdote:

        I was in O’Hare (ORD) a year or so ago.

        A group of employees, aged 30-50 sat down near me (waiting for an arrival). They are all animatedly talking amongst themselves.

        They helped with the arrival and left.

        A short while later, a similar group sat down in the same area; but aged in their 20s — and every single one was looking at a device, and no one was talking!

        1. Went to a restaurant and in the waiting room, four newly wed couples (yuppies in their mid twenties) were all waiting for a table and not one of them was talking to their spouse or their friends…all eyes on their devices. The age of iSolation.

      5. I worked at Blackberry for 8 years. Everyone walked like that, so much that there was a sign in the manufacturing building in the stair case that warned not to read your Blackberry while walking up the stairs. I actually fell that way once top. You’d think going down the stairs would be dangerous, but you tend to wipe out going up the stairs.

        1. Hey, I’ve been working there for about 12 years now.

          So please continue using smartphones 😉

      6. I saw three teenagers walking this fall on a path and a road runner crossed right in front of them nabbed a lizard and not one of the kids noticed. How they managed to walk and text is actually impressive though.

        1. I was riding my bike with my family last summer (or maybe the summer before) and a young woman (15? 16?) was riding her bike towards us on the foot path, no-hands, looking only at her device, texting.

          I said (very loudly) to her as she passed, “stupid, stupid, stupid”.

      7. I gotta say I’m of GB’s mind on this issue. I can think of no legitimate reason for someone I don’t know at all to have a problem with seeing me use my phone. My attitude is that if I’m not using my “free” time to learn something by accessing the amazing wealth of information made available to me by this wonderful device then I’m wasting that time.

        On a related note, I have a grievance of my own: about a year ago I answered a call on my cell phone while I was at the gym. The call lasted all of 30 seconds, and I didn’t even do most of the talking, yet it managed to upset some guy enough to chide me for it. My jaw hit the floor. I can understand being upset by cell phone conversations at the library, at a restaurant, on a plane, ie, somewhere where people are looking for a quiet atmosphere. But the GYM?! I was certain this guy had to be a fairly unique prima donna, but a couple of weeks ago I received an email from my gym outlining “gym etiquette”. It included refraining from taking cell phobe calls on the gym floor. Where people are running on noisy treadmills, clanking noisy weights, where the gym itself pipes in blaring rock music, where almost everyone is ALREADY HAVING FACE TO FACE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE EVERY BIT AS AUDIBLE AS ANY CELL PHONE CONVERSATION!!! I’m mystified.

        Adding to my indignation is the fact that people who insist I stay off my phone lest it interfere with their ability to “get in the zone” are being, well, oblivious assholes. I often receive calls I have to take: my daughter has cerebral palsy and as the parent with the more flexible work schedule, I do all the dealing with the primary care physician, the physical therapist, the occupational therapist, the neurologist, the physiatrist, the orthotist, etc, etc. If I had to stay home on the off-chance I’d receive a call that needed my attention I’d never get out.

        1. ” . . . where the gym itself pipes in blaring rock music . . . .”

          Yep, vis-à-vis a cellphone call, have to agree with you that that’s more than a little righteously inconsistent on the part of the private corporate gym tyrant.

          On occasion I’ve sat in Starbucks and clearly heard every word a person says on her/his cellphone. (I myself step outside so I can hear on the cellphone, or will cup my hand so that I don’t have to talk so loud to be heard.) At such times I’ve wondered whether I have no less a right to stand up and sing “La Donna e Mobile” as loud as the loudest conversations, whether face-to-face or on phone.

          1. Hey I’ve thought of screaming and crying when I hear a child act up in public. I figure it would be a peculiar experience for the child as if I had experienced something at that age like that I would feel suddenly self consciousness and freaked out at seeing an adult behave that way.

          2. I say to K-5 groups at school: “Of course, none of you have ever embarrassed your mother by falling on the grocery store floor and throwing a tantrum in front of other people, hmm?”

            Then I also reflect to them that it might be reasonable and appropriate to video them having such a fit and show it to them when they reach adulthood. They do not uniformly respond to that idea in an affirmative way.

          4. I wish mobile phones with video had been a thing when I had a child who did this. I could have videoed it and played it back to him later. I wonder what effect it would have?

          5. I have seriously considered belting La donn’e mobile myself in similar circumstances, or possibly the Toreador song…I know I should pick a soprano aria, but I can’t hit the high notes…I don’t want to hear all the uninvited details of others lives…qual pium nel vennnnnnnto🎶

          6. If you get a chance, check out on Youtube Anita Renfroe’s “The Mom Song,” set to Rossini’s “William Tell” overture.

        2. It’s clear to me that you have good phone etiquette.

          Most people do not. (Like most people are not really competent drivers.)

          Definitely, the gym is a place where a phone call should be a non-issue. (Really? If they want to get “into the zone”, they should have noise-precluding earbuds — a gym is a noisy place.)

          That said, I think there will be a reaction to the ubiquity of “smart” phones. Too many people are glued to them, pretty much every waking hour. Way too many people are recklessly driving while web surfing our texting (I see it all the time). Young people seem to relate to their screen more than other humans. Seems to me this will have to change. People will, eventually realize, that people are (or should be) more interesting.

          And what’s wrong with time away from the internets? I too feel a strong drive to accomplish a lot before I croak and I am spurred by it all the time. But I also want a lot of time away from computers (practicing my music and building instruments in my shop really help).

          I guess one could look at reading the same way (I’m looking at my book and engaged with it). Or watching TV (I never watch TV, haven’t since the mid-1980s). But the smart phones, with email, texting, video games (don’t play them) and internet seem more addictive. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion, looking around me.

          I (generally, see below) have no issue seeing people on their cell phones.

          I object to people talking loudly on their phones in places like a restaurant (happens a lot), a meeting, a public performance, etc. When I get a call, I always move away from others. This seems pretty basic (and I’ll bet you do it too).

          I also object to my interlocutor staring at their screen instead of engaging with me. When this happens, I usually get up and leave. If they ask why (they often don’t notice!), I say, “You’re with the Important People, on your screen. See you later.”

          Most of the time, I see bad behavior on these gadgets these days (or, correct that: I notice the bad behavior).

          Back in the day, when cell phones were new and expensive, people who had them seemed to go out of their way to talk loud so people would notice, “I have a cell phone!” As they became more ubiquitous, that went away; but then people just became oblivious to the noise pollution and bad behavior.

          1. “And what’s wrong with time away from the internets?”

            …says a fellow intensely involved in a comment exchange on a website.

            I must calibrate my irony meter. It keeps shrieking at me.

          2. I largely agree with your points, here, with a couple of caveats:

            “…people are more interesting.” Well, depends on the people. My wife is the only meatspace atheist I have in my life. I need to escape to online atheist fora for my sanity. Compounding the issue is that most of my theist family and acquaintances are tea-party types. I don’t enjoy their company.

            The other caveat is that your complaints aren’t really about smartphones specifically. I could just as well say to someone: “Put down that book; I’m talking to you.” Or “stop playing the piano; I’m talking to you.” Or “stop juggling those chainsaws; I’m talking to you.” Or “don’t apply makeup while driving.”

            What I really have a problem with is Hitchens’ formulation: “Turn off that fucking cell phone; you can have no idea how unimportant your call is to me.” So, because an issue I need to address over the phone is unimportant to Hitchens, he thinks it’s his right to demand a bubble of silence while he’s out in public?

          3. Forgot to include that fact that all the commenters here at WEIT are people, too! I may not be interacting with you face-to-face, but you’re still a person with whom I enjoy interacting. As you wrote a short time ago, the WEIT commentariat is my tribe!

          4. “What I really have a problem with is Hitchens’ formulation: “Turn off that fucking cell phone; you can have no idea how unimportant your call is to me.” So, because an issue I need to address over the phone is unimportant to Hitchens, he thinks it’s his right to demand a bubble of silence while he’s out in public?”

            Well, there was a time when people could go and SIT in private pay phone cubicles, with doors that would shut, so that no one could hear ones private conversations, and one could converse in private. (I remember seeing such cubicles in a hospital in 1971. Later, phone companies dispensed with phone booths, with pay phone users having to deal with ambient human-generated noise.) Perhaps places of public accommodation should make such cubicles available though, of course, to stay where one is and talk loudly within earshot of strangers is the path of least resistance.

          5. My point is that cell phones do not make sense as the object of Hitchens’ ire. Why does he not say “shut your fucking mouth in general while in public”? Cell phone conversations are no more audible or intrusive than the conversation happening face to face between the couple sitting next to you.

          8. It’s because the phone on their ear is louder so they naturally compensate. I’m a loudmouth on the phone. I try to keep it down but I know I’m loud in an office.

          9. I can only say that when my dear wife and I go out to eat, as we did last night, with no difficulty we keep our private conversation at a sufficiently low volume that no one else can hear us, and we can easily hear one another. I heard no conversations at other tables at a distance, save the nearest table 8 feet away when a mother asked her 2 1/2 year-old, in response to some questionable behavior, “Do I need to have a conversation with you?”

            I frequent a Starbucks, and the staff’s conversation with one another rings in my ear, and I’m sitting about as far away as one can from them. Do they not know how loud they talk? I’m tempted to request that they reduce the volume, but I don’t want to come across as a meanie.

            Similarly, does cellphone technology need to improve so that the person on the other end can hear without the cellphone owner having to talk so loudly? (In the interim, as a reasonable accommodation and consideration to those around one, why not cup ones other hand around the speaker so as to not have to talk quite so loudly, though it does take a little effort to do so and is technically an inconvenience, eh?) Of course, if there’s loud conversation going on around the cellphone owner (including others on their own cellphones), speaking for myself I get up and go outside to seek a little more quite.

            Beyond that, it’s a bloody noisier world than it was 20-40 years ago. Apparently, the maxim “When In Doubt, Shout” applies, to the detriment of civil discourse.

          10. Maybe everyone’s going deaf? I do notice wait-staff at coffee shops and cheaper restaurants do converse more loudly among themselves than they used to. Or maybe we’re just getting all “kids, get off my lawn!”, as Jerry would have it.

          11. I noticed that at a Tim Horton’s once. The staff kept getting calls on their personal mobile phones & kept talking really loudly to each other, to the point that I had a hard time talking to the person across from me.

            Get off my lawn!

          12. I’ve noticed that certain – usually young(er)- restaurant (Hoo-Rah sales team) wait staff, when approaching and no less than six feet away from our table, will start talking out loud to us, not making the least effort to take note of whether one of us is in the middle of a sentence. The term “situational awareness” is lost on them. “Loquacious Interruptus” seems to be the standard for what passes for early 21st Century Amuricun discourse.

            More times than not I take it on the chin so as to Keep The Peace and remain in good cheer, which is a basic goal of such an outing. When they approach and stand by, for sure I will complete my sentence and then gladly turn my attention to matters culinary. I’m sometimes sorely tempted to say, “Can you give me a little advance notice when you are going to interrupt me?” Or say, “So sorry to be in mid-sentence talking to my tablemate when you started talking to (borderline yelling at)us.” Or, “There are two monumentally strong pieces of evidence that someone is talking. First, her lips are moving. Second, there’s a noise coming out from between the lips.”

            Once, when having been egregiously twice interrupted, in response to wait staff’s third attempted interrupting salvo I kept pointed talking and raising my voice and bloody completed my sentence. No doubt my countenance was not particularly sublime. It was lost on the server, she rather apparently taking it simply that I was a jerk, to such a degree that from that point on she and/or management had someone else wait on us. I myself have several years restaurant work experience so I’m positioned to hold forth on the matter.

          13. I too find it louder in the world but I think that is because I’m sensitive to sounds, especially when I have a migraine. Starbucks is a noisy place though I have come to really hate restaurants that blare music. I guess I’m getting old & grumpy.

            Get off my lawn!

          14. My impression is that people talk loudly on cell phones because they have such crappy acoustics. How many times doe the person on the other end ask you to speak up?

            With the old-fashioned hand-set one could have an intimate conversation; on cells, it’s all about projection.

          15. Merilee
            “I disagree. In my experience people generally talk much louder on their cellphones than they do in face to face conversations.”

            That applies (applied) to phones in general.

            In my young days I had a boss who talked very loudly. And from our group office we could hear him talking to people in his office. So we’d hear him say to some visitor, “I’ll just ask Chris” and I’d sit there with my hand on the phone ready to pick it up while the rest of the staff watched in amusement. When the call came I’d get it in stereo, one ear via the phone, the other via the open door…

          16. When my parents lived overseas in Europe and Africa, my mother woukd talk to my grandfather in California almost every Sunday. My very nice gf always had a booming voice at the best of times, but I would tease my fairly quiet-spoken mother of trying to yell all the way across the Atlantic.

          17. I sat near someone like that. We always knew what he was having for dinner and if he yelled at anyone, you heard the whole thing too.

        3. If they’re “in the zone” they wouldn’t notice that you’re on your phone now would they? By definition, this means they are blocking out distractions while intently focused on what they’re doing.

          On that note, I’d like to air a grievance about golf as a fucking spectator sport. Why does the crowd have to be so silent as to rival the silence found in Churches either due to reverence or sleep-inducing boredom (the reasons apply equally both to the golf course and the Church)?

          As a secondary grievance, I’d like to complain about people who complain about people complaining about people who use their cell phones. This goes in an infinite regress back to the first cause…Alexander Graham Bell.

          1. Lol.

            I have images of ancient Egyptians reading from vellum scrolls and being scolded by slightly more ancient Egyptians for not reading from papyrus scrolls.

          2. That’s funny. It sounds like something The Doctor would say – like “I’m a time traveler; I point & laugh at archaeologists!”

  17. I’ve already been airing my grievance over on the “Bad reasons for believing” post, whining about the new movie on Steven Hawking.

    Some people have already joined in, but I’ll move it over here anyway:

    Yesterday I saw the Steven Hawking movie The Theory of Everything and — while I enjoyed it overall — I found the pandering to faith extremely annoying. Steven Hawking is a famous atheist, one of the world’s most famous. His Christian wife (who wrote the book the screenplay was based on) and Hollywood took care to diminish and demean that as much as possible, however. They can’t deal with atheism head on. They have to play to the gallery.

    One of the major themes of the movie is the relationship between science and faith. And guess what? Yes! They’re compatible! Except when faith wins.

    Atheism is played as arrogant and insulting, with mocking, sneering atheists “not allowed” to consider God and their attitude balanced against a simple and humble faith. At one point his wife reads his “…and then we will know the Mind of God” quote and gets him to admit that yes, he means it (God exists!) — and then forces him to take back a small little “…however.” What a relief that the atheist decided to be decent to her.

    Near the end Hawking is asked in an auditorium how he derives meaning from life in the absence of God and the movie shows him crying, gazing upwards, and imagining a miracle (atheists want to believe! Hawking was hurt!) He’s then quoted something to the effect that “… there’s always hope” — which we place in a humanist context but brings the audience in the movie to a standing ovation to. There’s always hope that God exists! That’s what he meant!

    Science and religion come together! Both sides respected!

    Like hell. Pissed me off.

    Has anyone else seen the movie? Did you see the same things — or am I getting too sensitive?

    2. Am I ever glad I read your review. I had wanted to see if even though I had heard that it was short of science (Eddie Redmayne is one of my favourite actors). If I have time, I’ll go see it, and at least my expectations are further lowered.

      1. It’s still an excellent movie and yes, Redmayne’s performance is amazing. I’m not telling anyone I don’t think it’s worth seeing. It certainly is.

        But yes … be aware.

        At the end (not much of a spoiler here) the “miracle” Hawking envisions is one where he picks up … a dropped pen. Okay, I’m guessing that only an atheist — an online atheist — maybe even an online atheist in the U.S. — will immediately think “dropped chalk.” Probably over-reacting here. But … jeez. A very annoying coincidence.

        1. Ugh. I’d forgotten about that dropped chalk story that circulated through Facebook ad nauseam.

        2. Wow – I’d never heard of that story. How would anyone find that convincing?

          Once again, I’m reminded of JW’s coming to my door and saying “Don’t you wonder about all the movies showing the end of the world?”

          3. Saw it at TIFF in September. It’s quite good – Cumberbatch is excellent – but they messed with the facts a tiny bit near the end. Read the New Yorker review.

          4. I may have been unduly influenced also by the audience reaction. There were four people in the entire theater, both staid-looking middle-aged couples (yes, I am old and staid-looking.) At one point early in the movie the Christian girlfriend (soon to be wife) responds to a haughty “Physicists aren’t allowed to use God because it creates problems” (or something like that) with “Sounds more like a problem with physicists.”

            Suddenly the woman sitting way over on the other side of the theater shouts out “Touche!” Then she laughs and says something about “atheists” which I didn’t quite catch but it sounded very snide. They chuckle back and forth with their voices a bit too loud, obviously pleased with the way the Christian won that one.

            Wtf?

            Yeah. They were fed some red meat. They really liked it. From that point on I noticed all the tasty little bits thrown their way — though there was no more joyful screaming.

          5. What an odd thing to experience in the theatre. I only go when most people don’t so I probably miss out on these things.

          6. But the theater was virtually empty. It was almost as if the woman was giving me a special shout out, so that maybe I would yell back that “Yep, that lil’ gal shur fixed them good!” or something. Bonding experience.

            I’ve noticed this phenomenon in theaters before. If there is any atheist character who seems to end up in the wrong in some way, the laughter is loud and — to my ear anyway — forced. It’s like they’re nervous and letting off frustration … or calling to each other in some sort of communal ritual. I can’t think of any other examples off hand, but this isn’t the first time. Only the most recent.

          7. Yeesh! I remember being annoyed at the end in Contact about the way the atheist was patronized but I didn’t shout it out loud. The only time I remember someone loudly remarking in a movie was Schindler’s List after the Red Army liberated some people. In perfect comic timing, someone remarked, “here we go again!”

    3. >Has anyone else seen the movie?

      No, and thanks to your review, now I want. What you describe would ruin any other redeeming bits in it.

  18. Reza Aslan had a piece in the Dec 21 New York Times Magazine, on prayer at Christmas dinner in his own home, titled “Bless this Mess.” People of several faiths and an atheist were present, and there was disagreement about “how to thank God for the meal we were about to eat.” Reza suggested that they skip the prayer and just tell each other their hopes, fears, and gratitudes. They all ended up expressing similar things. He does not say whether individuals used their religion in their expression of feelings, but maybe they did, because he wrote that they “were just …[using] different spiritual languages” to express the same feelings.

    Aslan: “That’s all religion is, really: a language made up of symbols and metaphors that allow people to communicate, to themselves and others, the ineffable experience of faith.”

    This sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

    2. Gaakkkk, choking on my coffee:

      “That’s all religion is, really: a language made up of symbols and metaphors that allow people to communicate, to themselves and others, the ineffable experience of faith.”

      Tell that to ISIS! Right before you “destroy” them!

      1. “That’s all religion is, really: a language made up of symbols and metaphors that allow people to communicate, to themselves and others, the ineffable experience of faith-based terror, theft, rape, and murder.”

        IFIFY: ISISified!

    3. This sounds a bit self-serving and suspicious to me, given that religion is the 2,000 lb canary.

      Religion is just “symbols and metaphors” which help people communicate … what? “The ineffable experience of faith.” Which is what? Warm fuzzy human feelings of love for one another? Humanism? Or our relationship with God, a deep knowledge which even the atheist has but denies out of some strange sort of blindness which may be arrogance or insensitivity, who’s to say when we can’t and don’t judge others?

      In other words, sounds like a deepity. It means what you want … until it means what he wants.

      1. Oh, I was mostly taking it literally, that the “experience of faith,” which I think means what it feels like to believe in something without evidence, is ineffable, which means it cannot be put into words. Aslan gave a nice picture of family members getting along, but I can’t believe they agree they share a “feeling” and that’s all that matters when it comes to religion.

    4. The belief that some people go to heaven while others burn in hell for eternity is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      The belief that you are being continually monitored by a cosmic judge is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      The belief that a zygote is a human is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      The belief that euthanasia is contrary to God’s will is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      The belief that apostates should be murdered is not a metaphor.

      The belief that God wills that women cannot hold many of the same rights as men is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      The belief that God gave exclusive ownership of certain lands to you and your tribe is not a metaphor. Also, this is a belief that causes harm.

      And on and on and on. It’s almost like Reza Aslan has never had any interaction whatsoever with religious people other than the mush-headed liberal types.

    1. Oh, and heartiest congrats to all the long-married people. As the partner once said, “Twenty-five years at hard labour!” (now thirty-eight!) Eff him! lol 😉

    1. Maybe. On the other hand it could just be a cheap theory.*

      *I’ll defer judgment until after the New Year’s Eve toasts.

  23. I bitch so much 364 other days of the year, I reckon I’ll just ask a question of you good folk here.

    Can anyone date atheism before 500 BCE in the historical record? Surely it must be as old as man itself, but I can’t find any documented instances before then. Any hints?

  26. Presenting that “Airing of Grievance” complaint/summons form to a certain relative would very likely result in a “K my A!” initial (and not necessarily only) response.

    So, was the Jerry Stiller character pure as the driven snow? (I haven’t seen the episode.) He had not given anyone else at the table just cause to justifiably fire an invective salvo at him?

  28. Since we are at urban legends (dropped chalk), there are some urban legends that turn out to be true, to my great dismay -not really a grievance, but I’m dismayed I thought it to be untrue out of hand.
    After cutting onions you can get rid of smelly fingers by rubbing them against stainless steel with some water. I put it to the test and this actually works, and you don’t need to rub for several minutes, a dozen or so seconds suffices. For years, nay decades, I’ve been stuck with smelly fingers (I’m an avid cook) and there is such a simple solution… I haven’t tested it with aluminium or rusty iron yet.
    Does anybody have an explanation?

    There was another one, but when I try to think of it I draw blank, early Alzheimers, I suppose…

  30. My grievance is the robocalls I get every day, just at dinnertime. It is enough to

    1. Make me change my dinnertime

    2. Change my phone number

    1. If I get one of those I sometimes scream at the phone “Just fucking DIE” as I bang it down. I know there’s nothing on the other end of it but it relieves my feelings. Why can’t they be made illegal? Track the perpetrators down and shoot them. I’m not generally in favour of the death penalty but I’ll gladly make an exception for those accursed phone-spammers. There’s just something so infuriating about some cretin bothering me with a wretched automatic machine.

      1. I have been getting the same stupid telemarketers (or I assume so since the times are the same) call here at 6 then at 8. I am too cheap for call display so when I hear a pause, I hang up, hoping the software on their end will see the number as no good. I actually hung up on my aunt this way when she took too long to say “hello”. 🙂

        I honestly wish they could be made illegal & this could somehow be enforced because sometimes I feel like you can’t enjoy peace in your own home as these callers constantly interrupt it. I suppose the difficulty in enforcement is often these calls originate overseas & the do so using VOIP & can therefore change what their phone number appears to be, so even if you have call blocking, you can’t really stop them.

        I find it particularly annoying when they call your mobile phone. If I don’t recognize the caller, I typically don’t pick up as I don’t get a lot of phone calls & if I make a mistake, the caller will either call back immediately (in which case I’d answer) or leave a message that I’ll check right away.

        1. I hang up, hoping the software on their end will see the number as no good.

          Actually, perversely enough, that has the opposite effect: it confirms that there’s a living, breathing person at that number so the computer will make sure to call you again.

          The best way to get them to take you off the list?

          Play along nicely and keep them on the phone as long as you possibly can, all without divulging any information they could use for identity theft. Go to a Web site that’ll generate credit card numbers for testing when they ask you for one, but give them the bank’s real phone number off the back of your card.

          Might take a couple / few times, but they’ll pretty quickly realize that you’re going to just suck them dry with no benefit to them, and then they’ll finally take you off their fucking list.

          b&

          1. Teergrubing them only works for real live callers, who (ironically) don’t annoy me so much. My impulse to scream invective and death threats at them is tempered by the consideration that it must be a shit of a job cold-calling people, so I just limit myself to an abrupt “Not interested. Goodbye”.

            It’s the machine-recorded messages that start, in that abrasive aggressive-sounding voice normally reserved for ‘infomercials’, “Are you paying too much for household insurance? Do you want to make savings on your monthly bills?” blah blah blah, then presumably direct you to call some other number or go to some website – but I never get that far as I’ve hung up. If I was a geek I suppose I’d note the website and bring it down in ruins, but my hacking skills are non-existent.

          2. From time to time I’ve “played along” with the real-human calls for fun. It is amazing how long you can string some of these guys along. I used to get occasional calls claiming to be from “the Windows Department of Microsoft” telling me that they’ve noticed a problem and are calling to help me fix it. I pretend to be grateful for the call and talk as if I’m doing what he tells me to do. But since I’m a Mac guy, I’m just making it up as I go. It helps to pretend to be incredibly ignorant about how computers work. The less you act like you know, the longer you can play the charade.

            Eventually, of course, it gets boring. That’s when I let the fellow know he’s been played. After doing this a few times I discovered that they stopped calling.

          4. I have a certain narcissistic (solipsistic?) relative – pretty much accustomed to saying most anything to anyone anytime anywhere she pleases – who I have heard not a few times over the years say to someone – either face-to-face or over the phone – “I don’t owe you that consideration.” She is to civility as Scrooge is to money, and thinks it’s perfectly fine. Her style of “apology” is along the lines of, “I am sorry you got upset.”

            She likes to crow to anyone within earshot how she “straightened out” someone, one example being a cell phone representative. I figure these cell phone reps know the kind of such uncivil, obstreperous Philistine they will occasionally have to deal with, and I gather that they generally are able to discipline and compose themselves to refrain from responding in kind. (After all, “The Customer Is Always Right,” eh?) Accordingly, in this case, it must have taken a quite significant salvo from her to prompt the rep to (civilly) inquire whether and why she was verbally assaulting him personally. She replied to the effect because he was the one she could get ahold of.

            When she told me this, I sent thoughts through the ether to the rep – “Join the club.” I confess that in response to these tales of triumph I say nothing and control my facial expression, as at such times I am visiting from several hundred miles away, and am constrained by being a guest under her roof.

            This gets me to wondering: Is it harder or easier to be nice than to be mean? The way I have felt when dealing with such gratuitous mean-ness is that it is harder to be nice, or at least tolerably civil, in response. In the wake of being nice to and extracting myself from a given freaking rude hominin,I have felt enraged, and have wanted to fire back with equal force. It is certainly a measure of ones self-discipline and -control to be able to bear up under such onslaughts. On the other hand, to quote Dylan, “How many seas must the white dove sail?”, before s/he decides to don the clawed mien of the raptor? The older I get, the more I’m inclined to agree with Hitch, that “Civility is overrated.” Is it overrated by a little or a lot? For sure, incivility has markedly increased in Amuricun society during the last twenty years. (I’m reminded of a high school classmate at a reunion who – himself so-challenged – said, “Having hair is overrated.” He definitely wasn’t of that opinion in his more hirsute youth.)

          5. I don’t get phone calls but I do get emails that say “Windows has detected a fault, go to this website to download the fix”. Which is amusing since I don’t run Windows either. (I was about to say there is no M$ code in my computers, but I read a couple of years ago that MS was the 5th largest contributor of code to the Linux kernel. Not in some SCO-style ‘stolen’ code, but open-source MS code properly submitted and passed by St Linus. In operating systems as in religion, accomodationism has its practical advantages. I think the code in question was to help Linux and Windows servers to talk to each other).

          6. presumably direct you to call some other number or go to some website

            The ones I get always invite me to “PRESS 1 NOW!” which connects me to a live leech. Or, they also suggest you can “press 3 now to be removed from their list,” but that only confirms that there’s a real human at the other end of the phone, so it really means, “press 3 now if you want us to hound you into the grave.”

            b&

        2. ” . . . the caller will either call back immediately (in which case I’d answer) or leave a message that I’ll check right away.”

          An excellent modus operandi, which I endorse, and generally effective (unless ones mother is calling – “I know you’re there – and choosing not to answer!”).

  32. Festivus. That’s my latest whinge. I say, conquer Christmas!
    Christmas is the word for the whole amalgam of the christian nativity, solstice, and modern shopping, eating, family binges, and a few other things too. Santa isn’t specifically christian. Nor is Rudolph or the Grinch. The word Christmas has meaning and connotation beyond its etymology. It has meaning beyond just the religious, and it has power. It is part of my cultural inheritance, and they cannot have it without a fight.
    We don’t balk at the origin of lots of words that have come unmoored from their root.
    The church co-opted Saturnalia for the nativity celebration. They showed you could make a pagan festival christian. Why can’t we have an atheist christmas?

      1. My plan for this year exactly! One of the gifts for my partner is a Indian spice pack and book from an Indian restaurant in California that I found on the web.

  33. Is it justifiable to put spy cams in toilets to spy on the toilet bowl because there are acts of vandalism carried out?

  35. In response to festive overload (and it’s barely midday here!), I’ve been following up things from this morning’s PNAS headlines email.
    LiveScience has an item questioning traditional dinner choices. “Why Not Eat Canada Goose for Christmas? (Op-Ed)” The thesis is simple : (1) goose has long been traditional fare, but Dickens (accidentally) made turkey more popular despite gourmands speaking highly of the taste and texture of the goose in general ; (2) the parks and public green spaces of the USA are packed with geese over-eating on the grass and terrorising people. Solution : eat the geese! Something to consider for next year, perhaps?
    And we’re back to thread resurrection!
    Closer to the main WEIT theme, Neil “Your Inner Shubin” Fish, is a lead author on a study of the genes present in modern bony fishes (phylogenetically basal to our tetrapod selves) which are functionally related to the genes responsible for generating the tetrapod finger and wrist. “Deep conservation of wrist and digit enhancers in fish” (Open Access)
    And finally, there is a trope that recurs regularly, but which seems to be on a shakier footing than is normally thought. “No evidence for intracellular magnetite in putative
    vertebrate magnetoreceptors identified by
    magnetic screening” (Open Access again). I recall the infamous “Martian fossils” ALH84001 paper of 1996 in which one of their lines of evidence was the presence of unusually well-formed crystals of magnetite, a magnetic mineral (you’d never guess from the name!), which they associated with magnetotactic terrestrial bacteria. An interesting correlation, if not necessarily a smoking gun (cue Freak brothers link … damn, I’ve closed that page). Unfortunately, these researchers have examined a number of cell types from vertebrates which cells have large magnetic moments (react to magnetic forces) but which do not have magnetite grains. Which considerably muddies the waters over the question of how these organisms (e.g. trout) can sense magnetic fields, or whether there have been multiple origins of this sense in different branches of the tree of life. We’re all familiar with creationists quote mining and distorting science, so I’d anticipate that at some point in the future readers here will find a god-squaddie challenging mention of magnetic senses as an example of evolution, because the story does seem to be more complex than the simple picture that could be painted. A degree of caution is advisable. (And now I need to go and RTFP, in addition to RTFA.)

Comments are closed.